Filed: Oct. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1013 In re: JOHN DOE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1) Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020 Amended: October 22, 2020 Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Doe, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, al
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1013 In re: JOHN DOE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1) Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020 Amended: October 22, 2020 Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Doe, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, all..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1013 In re: JOHN DOE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1) Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020 Amended: October 22, 2020 Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Doe, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motions for bond and appointment of counsel. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court ruled on his motion on January 15, 2020. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Doe’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
